Spoilers TOS: The Captain's Oath by Christopher L. Bennett Review Thread

[Desert Kris]

No, I just meant it to be a "fog of war" situation, so much happening so quickly that there wasn't time to react to everything.

That's very helpful, thank you for clarifying the fogginess of the situation.

I didn't specifically intend it that way; I was just trying to tell a plausible story for how the Kirk of TOS earned his command, based on the formulation in The Making of Star Trek that he earned a ship of the Enterprise's size and importance after proving himself in command of at least one smaller ship. That's the version of Kirk's backstory I've known for over 40 years, so naturally it loomed larger in my thoughts than a 10-year-old movie. I was aware that telling the story in that way would contrast with the Kelvin version in a way that highlighted its logic problems, but that wasn't my specific purpose, just a side effect.

I think I understand. It's a very satisfying side effect. For my part, I'm enjoying the book without taking it as something that diminishes the fun of the Abram movies for me. There are a lot of blank spaces in the setting of those movies, if anything The Captain's Oath gives me food for thought about if there are counterpart incidents in the Kelvin timeline, thoughts about what we haven't seen of the Kelvin timeline Kirk's career.

 

[Christopher]

That may be, but it would still be wise for Starfleet to investigate, perhaps by a Board of Inquiry. Even if they cleared Kirk they could still get useful information to prevent similar situations in the future. And Kirk's lying about it is a huge issue of course (and was addressed in the film). He could have mitigated some of that at least by being honest.

That's a different issue, though. The "die before violating the directive" thing is meant to apply to what really matters. It's fanatical and ludicrous to think that a single glimpse of futuristic technology is exactly as destructive as actively conquering a planet or convincing them to worship you. The thoughtless legalism of the 24th-century approach, the anthropologically incompetent and condescending notion that native cultures are fragile things that would be broken by the tiniest exposure to even a single new idea, is what's so dysfunctional about it.

But she goes deeper and explains that they don't understand, that they can't understand their culture enough to make that judgment call for them. That they cannot know their society in depth enough to rule by fiat, no matter how well-intentioned they are.

Sure, that's supposed to be the idea, that they have the right to make their own decisions, that they know their own society best and are smarter about it than we are, so we shouldn't arrogantly assume our decisions are better than theirs. The problem with the "Pen Pals"/"Homeward" view is that it inverts that -- it presupposes that we do have the right to unilaterally decide their fate without consulting them. "Homeward" is especially horrible about it, because it's based on the assumption that a native culture is too primitive and stupid to survive exposure to our superior knowledge so we have the right to decide that they're unworthy to survive. That's just the kind of condescension and arrogance that the PD was supposed to counter. The PD wasn't supposed to be about the natives' weakness, it was supposed to be about recognizing our weakness and resisting the temptation to boss other cultures around just because we have better gadgets.

That the default should be NOT to interfere.

Again, non-interference is the means, not the end. The default in dealing with other cultures should be the same as in dealing with other individuals: respecting their free will and right to make choices about their own lives. Interference means bossing other cultures around, attempting to impose your views or choices on them whether they want it or not. It doesn't necessarily mean simply showing up and saying hello. You can interact with someone else without interfering with their lives. The important thing is to respect their consent and let them take the lead in deciding how the interaction proceeds. The reason for avoiding contact with pre-spaceflight cultures is that there's too great a power imbalance and it's hard for them to really have informed consent in an open interaction. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to handle it -- just that it has to be done carefully, and we (i.e. Starfleet) aren't necessarily smart enough yet to do it wisely, so we just avoid taking the risk instead.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Of course, then, there are a few cultures that are particularly vulnerable to the slightest contamination. Like the Iotians. Who knows? Maybe they're the reason why the 24th Century Starfleet is so fanatically rigid that they'd let a culture die, rather than transport it to safety?

 

[Desert Kris]

Of course, then, there are a few cultures that are particularly vulnerable to the slightest contamination. Like the Iotians. Who knows? Maybe they're the reason why the 24th Century Starfleet is so fanatically rigid that they'd let a culture die, rather than transport it to safety?

I don't know, I kind of figured that the Iotians have great potential. They are credited as intelligent and good at mimicking. They can pick up on new cultural ideas fast. I know it's from a comedy episode, with a punchline ending, but still. Cultural mimicking the way they can? They'd be great cultural chameleons. Imagine them as part of the Federation, when caught up technologically. They would be great for infiltrating and evaluating pre-first contact cultures. On an evaluation team, they might be better at not drawing attention to themselves by blending in with the culture being evaluated, if they had to interact with individuals of that culture.

 

[Christopher]

Of course, then, there are a few cultures that are particularly vulnerable to the slightest contamination. Like the Iotians.

I don't believe that for a minute. The idea that the Iotians just blindly copied an outside idea is simplistic and condescending, a sci-fi riff on the misunderstanding of how South Pacific "cargo cults" worked. Cargo cults were founded by members of Melanesian cultures as a way of co-opting the material wealth of colonizing civilizations as a symbol for reasserting their own cultural autonomy and agency; as Wikipedia puts it, “Since the modern manufacturing process is unknown to them, members, leaders, and prophets of the cults maintain that the manufactured goods of the non-native culture have been created by spiritual means, such as through their deities and ancestors. These goods are intended for the local indigenous people, but the foreigners have unfairly gained control of these objects through malice or mistake.” So far from being blind submission to superior outsiders as in the ethnocentric myth, it’s a reaction against their material superiority, an attempt to claim their goods and symbols for indigenous use and restore the traditional social order that contact has disrupted.

By analogy, I suspect that what really happened on Iotia is that there was already an indigenous culture that had a value system paralleling Prohibition-era mobs, and when the Horizon brought "The Book," that culture was able to co-opt it as "proof" that their value system was divinely ordained. So adopting the trappings of the outside culture that legitimized their belief system was something they did to serve their own sociopolitical agenda of spreading their beliefs and power worldwide. It wasn't just some mindless imitative reflex, because sentient beings and their cultures are far more complex than that. If "The Book" hadn't fit the existing agendas of any of the native cultures, then they would've probably rejected it rather than copying it. And the Horizon crew made the same mistake that the observers of cargo cults made -- since they didn't understand the natives' own reasons for co-opting their visitors' ideas, they assumed it was just the imitativeness of a childlike people.

After all, the idea of the Iotians being defined strictly by imitation makes no sense; if that were their only basis for forming cultures, then who were they imitating before first contact? If the indigenous cultures were imitating each other, then where did the imitatees get their initial ideas? It's a self-contradictory premise. They must have had independently developed cultures of their own, so they must have had a basis for cultural development other than mere imitation.

That's why I prefer the post-Iotia stories of the sort seen in Corps of Engineers with Makk Vinx or in Peter David's "Trial of James T. Kirk" in DC Comics, where the Iotians kept their "gangster" culture after the episode, to the Worlds of the Federation or Marvel Star Trek Unlimited version that shows them changing their culture wholesale to mimic Starfleet. A culture changes in response to its own needs and goals, even if it seems like it's copied forms from outside. So they won't embrace those outside forms unless it serves their purposes to do so. SCE's Vinx is a good illustration; he's a modernized, 24th-century Iotian serving in Starfleet, but he still talks and acts like a Chicago gangster, because that's the culture the Iotians chose to adopt for their own purposes.

 

[Damian]

That's a different issue, though. The "die before violating the directive" thing is meant to apply to what really matters. It's fanatical and ludicrous to think that a single glimpse of futuristic technology is exactly as destructive as actively conquering a planet or convincing them to worship you.

Yeah, I agree it shouldn't be a blanket sort of interpretation. But I don't blame Starfleet for also being very concerned that the natives saw the Enterprise as some sort of deity. Now maybe nothing will come of it and it will someday become just another legend. But Starfleet will need to keep a close eye on Nibiru to make sure that's all it ever is.

The thoughtless legalism of the 24th-century approach, the anthropologically incompetent and condescending notion that native cultures are fragile things that would be broken by the tiniest exposure to even a single new idea, is what's so dysfunctional about it.

I agree with you there. Which is why I'd love to see a story that addresses why that might be. And that doesn't mean Starfleets interpretation would be correct, or necessarily ethical. But was there some incident in the early 24th century that resulted in some catastrophe that caused Starfleet to become reactionary toward the PD? It'd be interesting too because there are examples of that in history. Something bad happens and a civilization goes too far the other way (sometimes with good intentions even). I can see that in the Star Trek universe as well. Some officer interferes with a culture thinking they are helping, something horrible happens and Starfleet decides they have to tighten enforcement of the PD--but even with good intentions they end up going to farr.

And while that is true about the 24th century, even then, Picard is obviously exonerated of any wrongdoing (despite Admiral Satie's claims to the contrary in "The Drumhead"). Ultimately Starfleet agreed with Picard though his hand was sort of forced in "Homeward" (thanks for the reminder).

And yes, I agree that's a heartless way to enforce the PD. I don't think ''allowing a civilization to perish" was the intent of the PD. Esp. of a natural disaster not of their own making. I suppose you could make an argument if a civilization was warring against itself. You could argue that one either way probably. But of a natural disaster that could be prevented. A civilization can't develop if it's dead.

Again, non-interference is the means, not the end. The default in dealing with other cultures should be the same as in dealing with other individuals: respecting their free will and right to make choices about their own lives.

Interference can't be an end either. Like you said, respecting their free will has to come first. And I do believe the best way to respect that is not to interfere or expose them to advanced technology at all. That's basically what I meant. That they don't interfere, don't show themselves, esp. to a pre-warp society, unless their is some crucial reason they must. The only reason we see Kirk interfere in a society in the original series is for drastic reasons. Either the society is in danger of becoming extinct, or it's stagnated and like you noted needs something else that's interfering to be stopped.

And you noted yourself (and I recall some of the same arguments in your Rise of the Federation novels) that the PD is also to prevent officers from 'playing God', even if their intentions are good. And it's the same argument I noted Janeway made in the novel I'm reading. That we don't always know best. We may think we are doing a good thing but in reality are not.

I always liked the PD in Star Trek for its philosophy. Like anything I don't believe it should be a blanket, no exceptions policy. But like Picard noted once in TNG it's also designed to 'protect us'. That is protect officers from thinking they always know better. There are times Starfleet officers must interfere. But there are also plenty of times they must NOT interfere.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I was of course being facetious about Iotia (hence the emoticons), but speaking of Makk Vinx, if I remember right, didn't he talk more-or-less like a character out of a low-budget production of Guys and Dolls?

 

[Damian]

The other thing about the Nibiru situation with the natives seeing the Enterprise is the other side, that is the scroll they tossed aside after they started to worship the image of the Enterprise. We don't know what that scroll represented. Them substituting the Enterprise for that scroll may have a dramatic effect on the native's development.

Just for the argument's sake let's say that scroll said something about all the Nibirans had to live in peace with another. Now after seeing the Enterprise they no longer view the scroll as worth the parchment it's printed on and decide war is what their gods want.

I mean, that's a drastic example that I just threw out there, but seeing the ship could very well have detrimental effects to the society. And it's a good reason to avoid contact with pre-warp societies unless it is absolutely necessary.

The problem is we don't know what effect it will have. We may think so what, so they worship an image of the Enterprise. And it may be harmless. But we can't assume that. And I think that's why Starfleet, and Admiral Pike, were so upset at Kirk about that (well, that and he lied on his report). And it's why I view that as an issue Starfleet was rightfully concerned about--even if they ultimately agree saving Spock was worth it.

We don't, we can't know how replacing their scroll with an image of the Enterprise will change their development. It may not, or it may change things drastically, possibly for the worse. And I thought it was clear in the movie the way their 'leader' tossed aside their scroll that they no longer viewed it as something sacred.

Now had he simply saved the planet without all that, then that should not be an issue based on 23rd century views on the PD (unless changed in the alternate universe for some reason).

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I agree it shouldn't be a blanket sort of interpretation. But I don't blame Starfleet for also being very concerned that the natives saw the Enterprise as some sort of deity. Now maybe nothing will come of it and it will someday become just another legend. But Starfleet will need to keep a close eye on Nibiru to make sure that's all it ever is.

The notion that it's the Federation's job to "make sure" is the problem. They're not responsible for Nibiru; the Nibirans are. Once again, it's about respecting other cultures' right to govern themselves. It's the Nibirans' own business how they choose to interpret what they saw. Ongoing intervention on Nibiru to make sure they conformed to the Federation's idea of how they "should" develop would be inappropriate interference. As long as it's just a single isolated incident, a freak event that doesn't repeat, then its long-term influence is likely to be minimal. Indeed, if the Nibirans are mostly organized into small bands like we see here, then there may not be much cross-contact and the image inspired by the sight of the Enterprise might not even propagate beyond this one small community. It'll most likely just be a blip. Intervening further to try to "correct" it would just be more intrusive. It's not up to Starfleet to decide what the "correct" path for them should be in the first place. That's the whole point of the PD.

Interference can't be an end either. Like you said, respecting their free will has to come first. And I do believe the best way to respect that is not to interfere or expose them to advanced technology at all.

Sure, that's the simplest, most cautious path. But it shouldn't be a fanatically enforced absolute. And it shouldn't be motivated by the frankly racist belief espoused in "Homeward" that a less technologically advanced culture is too primitive to handle new ideas.

Heck, as I conveyed with the Chenari in TCO, I believe that less technologically advanced cultures often have an easier time accepting new ideas, because so much about their world is new and unknown anyway that further discoveries are just taken in stride. Part of respecting other cultures' wisdom about their own lives is respecting their ability to cope with new information. Exposing them to that information could have unpredictable consequences, so it's not something to be done lightly or recklessly. But it's missing the point to think it's guaranteed to damage them. Which is why it makes more sense to approach non-interference as a general guideline, a starting default, rather than an inviolable mandate.

The only reason we see Kirk interfere in a society in the original series is for drastic reasons. Either the society is in danger of becoming extinct, or it's stagnated and like you noted needs something else that's interfering to be stopped.

Actually, I've realized that TOS often fell back on the excuse of putting the Enterprise in danger in order to force Kirk to tear down the social order despite the PD -- see "Return of the Archons," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Apple," and "The Gamesters of Triskelion." Contrary to popular belief, Kirk wasn't specifically acting with the primary goal of changing those cultures -- he was trying to save his ship, and destroying the oppressive foundations of those cultures just happened to be the necessary way to do that. The first edition of the TNG series bible actually codifies this recurring trope, saying that the PD allows exceptions when the survival of the ship or crew is at risk (although TNG ended up going a different route later on).

Both the TOS and TNG bibles allow exceptions to the PD for vital Federation interests, which probably explains it being suspended on Organia in "Errand of Mercy." It would also apply to "The Cloud Minders," since Kirk is forced to intervene in the Stratos/Troglyte conflict by the need to get the zienite to treat the botanical plague endanering a populated planet. It's the same sort of excuse for interference as above, but with a whole planet at stake instead of just a ship.

The only real case in TOS of interference in a culture to prevent its own extinction was "For the World is Hollow...". They were certainly trying to prevent an extinction event in "The Paradise Syndrome," but barely intervened with the culture to do it, so that doesn't really count (there would've been no issue in "Pen Pals" if they'd just followed that model).

The other main reason Kirk interfered was to counter others' interference -- the Klingons in "Friday's Child" and "The Apple," or the Federation/humanity itself in "A Piece of the Action," "Bread and Circuses," "Patterns of Force," and "The Omega Glory" (wow, late season 2 was jam-packed with these).

"Spock's Brain" is a hard case to classify, and it's odd that nobody ever seems to talk about it in PD terms. Maybe it's because the Eymorgs are both primitive and hyper-advanced depending on how you look at it. And Kirk was just rescuing Spock('s brain) from their abduction, so they were the aggressors. Still, it's the one "forcibly tear down the social order" episode that doesn't have a threat to the entire Enterprise crew to justify it.

("The Mark of Gideon" is an interesting case, in that Kirk doesn't overthrow the Gideonite leaders or subvert their plans. He saves Odona, but then she takes his place as the disease carrier so the plan can go forward. So that's an unusual aversion of the trope of tearing down a society in the name of saving the crew.)

The other thing about the Nibiru situation with the natives seeing the Enterprise is the other side, that is the scroll they tossed aside after they started to worship the image of the Enterprise. We don't know what that scroll represented. Them substituting the Enterprise for that scroll may have a dramatic effect on the native's development.

As I said above, it's folly to think of the Nibirans as just one culture. At their level, they're probably hundreds or thousands of small, separate bands, and a change that affects that specific community may never spread beyond it.

Just for the argument's sake let's say that scroll said something about all the Nibirans had to live in peace with another. Now after seeing the Enterprise they no longer view the scroll as worth the parchment it's printed on and decide war is what their gods want.

Again, it's folly to assume that new ideas completely replace existing ideas. Rather, they're co-opted into the belief framework that already exists, reinterpreted to fit the agendas and values the natives already have. (I actually wrote my undergraduate history thesis paper on this topic.) If they don't fit into that existing framework, if they don't serve a purpose within it, those outside ideas will just be rejected. The only way the image of the Enterprise would be adopted as a major theme in their culture is if it served or reinforced some cultural dynamic they already had going.

Societies are complex things. Their choices and values are shaped by a whole constellation of influences and needs, and introducing one new element isn't going to erase all those other factors. Societies choose war or peace because they see benefits in doing so, not just because some piece of paper told them to. The piece of paper is merely the justification. Look how differently our own religious texts are interpreted by factions with different agendas -- while some are inspired by the Bible or the Qur'an to pursue peace and unity and charity, others twist it into a justification for bigotry and violence and greed.

So the only way the Nibirans would throw out a belief system based on peace is if there were already a group within their society that had its own reasons for wanting war. They'd just be using the image of the Enterprise as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do already. So if it hadn't been that stimulus, they would've picked something else as an excuse (at least, if the volcano hadn't wiped them all out first).

And I thought it was clear in the movie the way their 'leader' tossed aside their scroll that they no longer viewed it as something sacred.

Which is ridiculous. See above. Even if that one guy did toss aside the scroll in an impulsive moment, presumably they're all individuals with a range of different reactions and priorities. If enough of them have a committed belief in the principles on the scroll, then they'll refuse to abandon it, and maybe they'll punish that guy as a heretic. Belief systems tend to have built-in error correction protocols, penalties for diverging too far from their tenets. So it's not as cartoonishly easy to overthrow an entire way of life as it was implied in that scene.

Conversely, if they did discard the scroll that easily, that implies it was never as important in the first place as it appeared. Maybe it was anthropocentric to assume that the gesture of bowing toward an object represents worship at all. Or maybe it was just a convenient object of focus for their beliefs, and they substituted the Enterprise as a better object of focus for the same beliefs, in the kind of syncretic substitution I talked about in my paper.

 

[Damian]

The notion that it's the Federation's job to "make sure" is the problem. They're not responsible for Nibiru; the Nibirans are. Once again, it's about respecting other cultures' right to govern themselves. It's the Nibirans' own business how they choose to interpret what they saw. Ongoing intervention on Nibiru to make sure they conformed to the Federation's idea of how they "should" develop would be inappropriate interference. As long as it's just a single isolated incident, a freak event that doesn't repeat, then its long-term influence is likely to be minimal. Indeed, if the Nibirans are mostly organized into small bands like we see here, then there may not be much cross-contact and the image inspired by the sight of the Enterprise might not even propagate beyond this one small community. It'll most likely just be a blip. Intervening further to try to "correct" it would just be more intrusive. It's not up to Starfleet to decide what the "correct" path for them should be in the first place. That's the whole point of the PD.




Sure, that's the simplest, most cautious path. But it shouldn't be a fanatically enforced absolute. And it shouldn't be motivated by the frankly racist belief espoused in "Homeward" that a less technologically advanced culture is too primitive to handle new ideas.

Heck, as I conveyed with the Chenari in TCO, I believe that less technologically advanced cultures often have an easier time accepting new ideas, because so much about their world is new and unknown anyway that further discoveries are just taken in stride. Part of respecting other cultures' wisdom about their own lives is respecting their ability to cope with new information. Exposing them to that information could have unpredictable consequences, so it's not something to be done lightly or recklessly. But it's missing the point to think it's guaranteed to damage them. Which is why it makes more sense to approach non-interference as a general guideline, a starting default, rather than an inviolable mandate.




Actually, I've realized that TOS often fell back on the excuse of putting the Enterprise in danger in order to force Kirk to tear down the social order despite the PD -- see "Return of the Archons," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Apple," and "The Gamesters of Triskelion." Contrary to popular belief, Kirk wasn't specifically acting with the primary goal of changing those cultures -- he was trying to save his ship, and destroying the oppressive foundations of those cultures just happened to be the necessary way to do that. The first edition of the TNG series bible actually codifies this recurring trope, saying that the PD allows exceptions when the survival of the ship or crew is at risk (although TNG ended up going a different route later on).

Both the TOS and TNG bibles allow exceptions to the PD for vital Federation interests, which probably explains it being suspended on Organia in "Errand of Mercy." It would also apply to "The Cloud Minders," since Kirk is forced to intervene in the Stratos/Troglyte conflict by the need to get the zienite to treat the botanical plague endanering a populated planet. It's the same sort of excuse for interference as above, but with a whole planet at stake instead of just a ship.

The only real case in TOS of interference in a culture to prevent its own extinction was "For the World is Hollow...". They were certainly trying to prevent an extinction event in "The Paradise Syndrome," but barely intervened with the culture to do it, so that doesn't really count (there would've been no issue in "Pen Pals" if they'd just followed that model).

The other main reason Kirk interfered was to counter others' interference -- the Klingons in "Friday's Child" and "The Apple," or the Federation/humanity itself in "A Piece of the Action," "Bread and Circuses," "Patterns of Force," and "The Omega Glory" (wow, late season 2 was jam-packed with these).

"Spock's Brain" is a hard case to classify, and it's odd that nobody ever seems to talk about it in PD terms. Maybe it's because the Eymorgs are both primitive and hyper-advanced depending on how you look at it. And Kirk was just rescuing Spock('s brain) from their abduction, so they were the aggressors. Still, it's the one "forcibly tear down the social order" episode that doesn't have a threat to the entire Enterprise crew to justify it.

("The Mark of Gideon" is an interesting case, in that Kirk doesn't overthrow the Gideonite leaders or subvert their plans. He saves Odona, but then she takes his place as the disease carrier so the plan can go forward. So that's an unusual aversion of the trope of tearing down a society in the name of saving the crew.)




As I said above, it's folly to think of the Nibirans as just one culture. At their level, they're probably hundreds or thousands of small, separate bands, and a change that affects that specific community may never spread beyond it.




Again, it's folly to assume that new ideas completely replace existing ideas. Rather, they're co-opted into the belief framework that already exists, reinterpreted to fit the agendas and values the natives already have. (I actually wrote my undergraduate history thesis paper on this topic.) If they don't fit into that existing framework, if they don't serve a purpose within it, those outside ideas will just be rejected. The only way the image of the Enterprise would be adopted as a major theme in their culture is if it served or reinforced some cultural dynamic they already had going.

Societies are complex things. Their choices and values are shaped by a whole constellation of influences and needs, and introducing one new element isn't going to erase all those other factors. Societies choose war or peace because they see benefits in doing so, not just because some piece of paper told them to. The piece of paper is merely the justification. Look how differently our own religious texts are interpreted by factions with different agendas -- while some are inspired by the Bible or the Qur'an to pursue peace and unity and charity, others twist it into a justification for bigotry and violence and greed.

So the only way the Nibirans would throw out a belief system based on peace is if there were already a group within their society that had its own reasons for wanting war. They'd just be using the image of the Enterprise as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do already. So if it hadn't been that stimulus, they would've picked something else as an excuse (at least, if the volcano hadn't wiped them all out first).




Which is ridiculous. See above. Even if that one guy did toss aside the scroll in an impulsive moment, presumably they're all individuals with a range of different reactions and priorities. If enough of them have a committed belief in the principles on the scroll, then they'll refuse to abandon it, and maybe they'll punish that guy as a heretic. Belief systems tend to have built-in error correction protocols, penalties for diverging too far from their tenets. So it's not as cartoonishly easy to overthrow an entire way of life as it was implied in that scene.

Conversely, if they did discard the scroll that easily, that implies it was never as important in the first place as it appeared. Maybe it was anthropocentric to assume that the gesture of bowing toward an object represents worship at all. Or maybe it was just a convenient object of focus for their beliefs, and they substituted the Enterprise as a better object of focus for the same beliefs, in the kind of syncretic substitution I talked about in my paper.

Which is why I believe Starfleet needs to keep Nibiru under observation IMO. It's a balance, yes. But I think they need to make sure the Enterprise incident (pardon the pun) doesn't have any serious, preventable, consequences.

It doesn't mean they have to interfere to undo what they did. But I think they need to keep the planet under covert observation. Perhaps nothing will need to be done. But if they see something more significant arising from it some action may be necessary. They certainly don't want the incident to be the cause of something drastic like the collapse of their civilization. If the incident fades into obscurity then ok, I mean, I'm sure they'd still keep them under observation as it seems something Starfleet does as the normal course of things (for study purposes and so forth). But no action would be necessary.

But I don't think they can assume they'll never have to take action.

I can see you would probably agree more with Shran than Captain Archer though . I'm more with Archer. I agree that interference may be warranted at times (in fact, in real life I don't like absolutes--there are always exceptions). But I prefer a bit more stringent interpretation of the PD. Not as far as "Homeward"...that's way to extreme. But non-interference should IMO be the default. That interference should only be done when there is no other alternative. I mean, I'm not sure how far you fall in the spectrum. I just feel there's too much of a temptation if there is leeway to 'play God' even if that is not the intention of the interferer.

 

[Christopher]

Which is why I believe Starfleet needs to keep Nibiru under observation IMO. It's a balance, yes. But I think they need to make sure the Enterprise incident (pardon the pun) doesn't have any serious, preventable, consequences.

As I've said, though, a lot of the time, changes that superficially look like they have an external cause are actually internal changes that just use the external influence as an excuse. So it's dangerous to make assumptions about whether a change in a culture is Starfleet's "fault" or not. It could be that the change would've happened anyway and the Starfleet presence just happened to be there at the right moment to be used as the catalyst, instead of whatever other excuse would've been picked in their absence. Anthropology should be descriptive, not proscriptive. The whole bloody point of the Prime Directive is that it is arrogant to assume you even understand what's going on in an alien culture or have any qualification to judge it one way or the other. Without an insider's understanding, you could completely misinterpret what you think you're seeing -- and that includes thinking that what you see is the result of your own interference. It's egotistical to assume things are about you, and the PD is supposed to caution us against that kind of egocentrism.

Indeed, now that I think about it, I'd argue that what Kirk did in "A Piece of the Action" could be considered inappropriate interference. It was one thing to counteract an active, ongoing intervention by an outside actor like Tracey or Merik or Gill. That's a textbook case of harmful interference, because it's cultural imperialism, an outsider aggressively imposing their own belief system on another culture. But what happened on Iotia was a single interaction that was not maintained by further human intervention. The Iotians got ideas from outside, but nobody forced them to use those ideas; realistically, it would've been their own choice to adopt and perpetuate them for their own reasons, and so those elements would've become part of their culture. (Although realistically they would've been syncretized with indigenous customs and mutated into something barely recognizable, rather than being exactly like an episode of The Untouchables.) So it wouldn't have been Kirk's place to say they weren't allowed to keep using those ideas the way they had autonomously chosen to do.

The counterargument is more of an ethical one -- that since human-introduced ideas had resulted in a century of mob warfare and violence, it gave humanity some responsibility for the harm and for trying to help the Iotians achieve peace. But that's not about abstract noninterference, just about doing the decent thing. And Kirk went about it the right way, by working with the Iotians and helping them help themselves within their own paradigm. He didn't try to erase the mobster culture they'd assimilated; he worked within the system as they created it, used their own methods to help them achieve the peace they all wanted, rather than trying to make them do things his way. So he respected their right to self-determination, including their right to choose to keep the elements they'd assimilated from Earth culture.

They certainly don't want the incident to be the cause of something drastic like the collapse of their civilization.

I keep trying to get across that that's a straw man, a ridiculously unlikely scenario. Civilizations are not that cartoonishly fragile. Like I said, they're shaped by countless internal and external factors. A single wild-card influence isn't going to trigger a "collapse" all by itself, not unless a hundred other factors have already put a society on the brink of collapse and it's just the pebble that sets off the avalanche. In which case something else would've set off the collapse soon enough.

And again, it wouldn't be one monolithic planetwide civilization. It was just that one local community, which may or may not have had any significant interaction with neighboring populations. We have no reason to assume it was the dominant culture on the planet, or was even typical of the species; it just happened to be the one nearest to the volcano. Even if the sight of the Enterprise did somehow magically trigger a "collapse," it would probably just be the collapse of that one village of a few hundred people, or at worst of the larger regional culture it was a part of. If aliens had briefly landed in, say, Australia a few thousand years ago, that would've had zero effect on Egypt or India or China.

But I don't think they can assume they'll never have to take action.

One more time: It is missing the whole point of the PD to assume that another planet's development is Starfleet's responsibility to regulate. Turn it around. Should the Vulcans have "taken action" to remove Velcro from our society once Mestral introduced it? What the hell right would they have to decide that for us?

I just feel there's too much of a temptation if there is leeway to 'play God' even if that is not the intention of the interferer.

Except that what you're advocating for Nibiru -- keeping constant watch and stepping in if they go astray from the path you unilaterally decide they should be on -- is the textbook definition of playing God.

 

[Damian]

As I've said, though, a lot of the time, changes that superficially look like they have an external cause are actually internal changes that just use the external influence as an excuse. So it's dangerous to make assumptions about whether a change in a culture is Starfleet's "fault" or not.

That is a danger, yes. I wouldn't advocate stepping in willy nilly.

Starfleet should keep them under observation--I mean, as I noted they may do that anyway as part of a study on a developing culture regardless. Now in most cases it would be passive observation with no action by the observers.

And I'd be very cautious about stepping in. I would only advocate that if it was absolutely necessary based on numerous factors. And there are various levels of 'fixing' a mistake. It may not be an overt action--perhaps something a simple as a suggestion. In a way it goes back to the PD and when you should interfere and when you shouldn't.

I mean, at the very least, Starfleet has a responsibility now to at least keep Nibiru under observation. I don't think they can just say to themselves 'not our problem now'.

The counterargument is more of an ethical one -- that since human-introduced ideas had resulted in a century of mob warfare and violence, it gave humanity some responsibility for the harm and for trying to help the Iotians achieve peace.

I think that argument probably would have more merit. The book was left by humans and however practical it was, it influenced Iotian civilizations. I agree Kirk threaded the needle well there. A minimum amount of interference to fix a mistake at least partly caused by a human ship. He used their own system to get them back on track. And the Iotians were obviously aware of E.T. life.

Nibiru is certainly more complicated since it's a more 'primitive' society. Starfleet has to think long and hard before deciding what, if anything, needs to be done. That's why I believe they'd want to observe them. Perhaps nothing need be done...but you wouldn't know that if you didn't observe. And don't interact/interfere under any circumstances unless deemed absolutely necessary after careful consideration. They don't even want to become 'benevolent overseers'.

That does make me wonder though....why was the Enterprise even hiding under the ocean in the first place? The Nibirans should never have had the opportunity to see the Enterprise because it shouldn't have been ON the planet to begin with. With transporters and shuttles it made no sense. They even noted they could pretty easily hide a shuttle, but not a Starship. If I were Starfleet I'd want to know that from Kirk. We could argue about how much or how little impact the Enterprise's appearance had on Nibiran society. But it shouldn't even have come up because the Enterprise had no business being below the atmosphere in the first place. They had technology that should have made that completely unnecessary.

 

[David cgc]

That does make me wonder though....why was the Enterprise even hiding under the ocean in the first place? The Nibirans should never have had the opportunity to see the Enterprise because it shouldn't have been ON the planet to begin with. With transporters and shuttles it made no sense. They even noted they could pretty easily hide a shuttle, but not a Starship. If I were Starfleet I'd want to know that from Kirk. We could argue about how much or how little impact the Enterprise's appearance had on Nibiran society. But it shouldn't even have come up because the Enterprise had no business being below the atmosphere in the first place. They had technology that should have made that completely unnecessary.

Well, we just tuned in for the last ten minutes of the episode. We didn't see all the set-up.

 

[Christopher]

Nibiru is certainly more complicated since it's a more 'primitive' society.

I refer you to Rhenas Sherev's thoughts on the "primitive" label in the Chenari rescue section.

And again, the fact that they're at that level is exactly why it's so absurd to think this single local incident is likely to have any wider global impact. It would probably be strictly local. Even if this near-the-volcano culture invented an Enterprise god, it would just be one of many local deities. It might end up getting absorbed into whatever larger regional pantheon emerged as those local communities organized into a larger cultural complex, just one of the numerous sky deities or sea deities. Or maybe it would just be a myth of a great beast sent by the sea god to calm the volcano god. Just one story out of hundreds, the rest of which are all indigenous.

Starfleet has to think long and hard before deciding what, if anything, needs to be done. That's why I believe they'd want to observe them. Perhaps nothing need be done...but you wouldn't know that if you didn't observe.

What I object to is that language about things "needing to be done," as in Starfleet acting upon the society. That's wrong. If anything needs doing, it's the culture's own responsibility to do it. This is what Kirk got right in "A Piece of the Action." He didn't unilaterally decide to impose peace. He listened to the Iotian leaders, heard them say that they wanted a more unified, peaceful society, and functioned as a facilitator to put them in the same place so they could work out their own solution. Starfleet's job in that situation would be to help the indigenous culture fix the harmful consequences of the intervention. Not to do it for them or to them.

That does make me wonder though....why was the Enterprise even hiding under the ocean in the first place? The Nibirans should never have had the opportunity to see the Enterprise because it shouldn't have been ON the planet to begin with. With transporters and shuttles it made no sense.

Except it was clearly stated in the film that the EM interference precluded transporter use, and the shuttles could only endure the heat and ash clouds from the volcano for a short time before failing. So the only way in was by shuttle, but it had to be a short trip. Comm range was limited too. Thus, the Enterprise had to be as close to the volcano as possible while still being protected from its effects and from Nibiran observation. Underwater was the only viable option.

 

[Damian]

Starfleet's job in that situation would be to help the indigenous culture fix the harmful consequences of the intervention. Not to do it for them or to them.

Yes, but that's why they need to keep them under observation. So they can see if they need any help. It may be nothing. It may be a gentle 'nudge' using the society's own civilization. But the only way to know that is to keep an eye on things to see if the presence of the Enterprise had repercussions they can't anticipate. And if they discover it's exactly as you say, just another god among many with no other significant impact, then they can leave them be and do nothing. That would be ideal.

So in a way, I can agree with what you are saying. The crux of my argument is that just as it may be irresponsible to try to 'correct' the damage done, it would also be irresponsible to simply wash their hands of it. What's done is done. But Starfleet needs to keep Nibiru under observation at least for a time if for no other reason to decide if any further action or no action is appropriate and warranted.

Except it was clearly stated in the film that the EM interference precluded transporter use, and the shuttles could only endure the heat and ash clouds from the volcano for a short time before failing. So the only way in was by shuttle, but it had to be a short trip. Comm range was limited too. Thus, the Enterprise had to be as close to the volcano as possible while still being protected from its effects and from Nibiran observation. Underwater was the only viable option.

Yes, I recall the transporter use being an issue (it seems EM interference interferes with the transport a lot--funny, Starfleet can nullify a Breen energy dampening weapon in pretty short order during the Dominion War, but it seems even by the 24th century something as pretty common as EM radiation still inhibits transporter use).. But it still seems drastic and unnecessary for the Enterprise to be put in that situation in the first place. Starships rarely enter a planet's atmosphere like that for numerous reasons. I would think there would have to be alternatives to basically 'landing' the ship.

 

[TheAlmanac]

The Kirk of the Star Trek (2009) and STID was much more fly by the seats and not concerned with regulations.

On the contrary--in the first film, Kirk knows regulations well enough to assert his right to confront his accuser at his Academy hearing, he wasn't going to board the Enterprise until McCoy manipulates a medical regulation to get him aboard, his personal log entry quotes the regulation he thinks Spock is violating by leaving him on Delta Vega, and he uses a regulation to get Spock relieved of command.

That film might have a weird take on the rules, but it doesn't get enough credit for how much it shows Kirk working within them.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Uh, regarding Ardana, aren't they a Federation member (and likely to get expelled over their caste system, and use of torture)?

And regarding the Eymorgs, they do have some form of star drive (even if they haven't a clue how it works), and I believe it's been established that warp-capable civilizations are automatically assumed to be capable of handling first contact.

And Natira is, as of the end of FW/tos, is the only Yonadan who knows their world is a powered spacecraft.

 

[Damian]

On the contrary--in the first film, Kirk knows regulations well enough to assert his right to confront his accuser at his Academy hearing, he wasn't going to board the Enterprise until McCoy manipulates a medical regulation to get him aboard, his personal log entry quotes the regulation he thinks Spock is violating by leaving him on Delta Vega, and he uses a regulation to get Spock relieved of command.

That film might have a weird take on the rules, but it doesn't get enough credit for how much it shows Kirk working within them.

Knowing the rules and following the rules are 2 different things. I think it's pretty clear Kirk in the Abrams universe is more the rule breaker type. In STID Admiral Pike even berates Kirk about it, telling him he thinks the "rules don't apply to him". And Kirk lied on his report. That's a very big, a very large 'breaking the rules' issue. And that's probably the biggest reason he lost his command in STID at the beginning of the movie.

Now he did a lot of growing up in STID so that by the time of Beyond we see more of the Kirk we remember from the original series. More mature, wiser, and understanding that rules and regulations are important. But between Star Trek (2009) and STID I would not consider him all that respectful of rules and regulations except in how they can advance him personally.

It's probably the best argument for an officer to advance through the ranks. It was actually something I liked about STID. I always thought the rapid fire promotion of a cadet to captain of the most advanced ship in the Fleet was a huge problem in Star Trek (2009). Kirk did not learn the important lessons of advancing through the ranks. Of course he was going to screw up. It's amazing it didn't cost lives, he really did get lucky. He didn't have the opportunity to learn what it takes to be a captain of a starship.

It's one of the reasons I prefer the more natural, orderly career path Kirk's life took in the prime universe. And that's a reason I really enjoyed the My Brother's Keeper trilogy and The Captain's Oath and why I keep bringing them up together here. The first showed us how Kirk advanced through the ranks in his earlier assignments. And The Captain's Oath showed us his first command and the things he learned as a young Captain.

 

[Christopher]

But it still seems drastic and unnecessary for the Enterprise to be put in that situation in the first place. Starships rarely enter a planet's atmosphere like that for numerous reasons. I would think there would have to be alternatives to basically 'landing' the ship.

I initially thought that as well, but I've changed my mind. Starfleet vessels are able to handle huge forces and accelerations, to reach high percentages of the speed of light in minutes, to survive impact by antimatter weapons and high-energy particle beams, and to withstand the stresses of a warp field (which is a spatial distortion of the same order of magnitude as a small black hole or wormhole). Compared to all that, the gravity and air pressure of an Earthlike planet (or the water pressure at the fairly shallow depth seen here) would be minor stresses.

And this was not a typical situation. The film clearly sets up a scenario that requires the Enterprise to be as close as possible to the volcano. The fact that the ship hid underwater is the least of the sequence's problems.

On the contrary--in the first film, Kirk knows regulations well enough to assert his right to confront his accuser at his Academy hearing, he wasn't going to board the Enterprise until McCoy manipulates a medical regulation to get him aboard, his personal log entry quotes the regulation he thinks Spock is violating by leaving him on Delta Vega, and he uses a regulation to get Spock relieved of command.

That film might have a weird take on the rules, but it doesn't get enough credit for how much it shows Kirk working within them.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to remember that.

Uh, regarding Ardana, aren't they a Federation member (and likely to get expelled over their caste system, and use of torture)?

Oh yeah, I guess there is that. Still, Plasus threatens to complain to Starfleet about Kirk's interference with his planet's government, so presumably Federation members retain certain rights to self-determination, and there are limits on federal and military power to intervene in local affairs.

And regarding the Eymorgs, they do have some form of star drive (even if they haven't a clue how it works), and I believe it's been established that warp-capable civilizations are automatically assumed to be capable of handling first contact.

The Prime Directive has never been exclusively about first contact. 24th-century Trek repeatedly made it clear that the Directive prohibits interfering in the political and social order of warp-capable societies as well. In TNG, Picard invoked the PD as the reason for not doing anything about the oppressive situations in "Symbiosis," "The Outcast," and "The Perfect Mate," all involving post-contact societies. In both TNG: "Redemption" and DS9 season 2's opening 3-parter, the PD prohibited Starfleet from intervening in the Klingon and Bajoran civil wars until they got proof that the uprisings were being backed by outside powers (respectively the Romulans and Cardassians). In "Captive Pursuit," the PD kept Sisko from interfering in the Hunters' pursuit of the Tosk. In VGR, the PD is why Janeway wouldn't share Starfleet technology with the Kazon, and why she objected to Torres giving the androids in "Prototype" the ability to reproduce. In "Counterpoint," Kashyk pointed out that Janeway had broken the PD by helping the telepaths escape persecution by the Devore. And Tuvok said in "Homestead" that it would violate the PD for him to lead the Talaxian colonists instead of Neelix.

After all, it makes no sense to say that other cultures' right to decide their own paths ceases to exist the moment they invent warp drive. The Federation is free to contact and interact with post-warp societies, yes, but that doesn't mean it's free to overthrow their governments and force them to change their social systems. Yet that's essentially what Kirk does in "Spock's Brain."

And Natira is, as of the end of FW/tos, is the only Yonadan who knows their world is a powered spacecraft.

They'd all have to find out within the next 390 days after that, before arriving at Daran V and disembarking there. It was implicit that Natira would tell her people the truth, share with them the knowledge in the Fabrini databanks, and ready them for their arrival at their destination. (I explored that process and its aftermath extensively in my first novel, Ex Machina.)

 

[Daddy Todd]

Finished the audiobook version last night. It might be because I listen to books on my short commute (less than 30 minutes each way) but I had a hard time tracking the intercuts between the various stories. YMMV, but this isn’t an ideal book to listen to. I suspect it would flow better on the page/e-reader.

For my taste there were also too many nods to the future — prescient glimpses of what’s to come. Yeah, we know Kirk and Spock are going to become besties. Pike & Wesley didn’t have to lampshade it quite so hard! It might’ve been more amusing to have McCoy tell Kirk that there was no chance he and Spock would ever have anything but a professional relationship.

Spoiler: Spoiler

I was also kinda hoping it would leave a gap before WNM, so there could be more “Year One” novels, but the epilogue kills that idea.

So, all in all, I voted “average”.